Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maybe I'm too much of a nerd, but I like to view the job market the same way I view a professional sports league (NFL, MLB, NHL, NBA, etc.). Here's how:
Small Companies: These are the minor league franchises. Once you graduate from college, it's much easier to break into these firms than it is with the big firms that everyone knows about. You start here to gain experience and to develop your skills. Small companies typically offer fewer advancement opportunities and have less money to spend on talent. So, once you've mastered your entry-level position, you can start looking at getting into the "Big Leagues" with well-known corporate giants. Small companies (minor league teams) are also nice places for older veterans to settle down once they've passed the prime of their career. They can offer their expertise in the field to mentor the ambitious rookies who are trying to get their lucky break.
Large Companies: These are the big league franchises. Often times, this is where the big bucks can be earned. Also, there tend to be a lot more advancement opportunities. You might start out in the mail room or as an admin asst. (i.e. 3rd or 4th string), but as you gain experience and knowledge of the industry you can move up to more important roles in the company (i.e. 1st or 2nd string).
The unemployed: You are the free agents out there. Your skills, education, experience, age, and overall ability to produce points determines how much you'll earn. Unfortunately, the current free agent market feels as if there is a low salary cap in place, limiting the ability of franchises (companies) to spend big bucks to sign top talent. It's similar to the NHL, where former star players now have to play for significantly less since teams need to be able to fall in under the salary cap (i.e. their budget).
Is this silly? I don't know, I like to think it's an interesting perspective and keeps things less boring. Feel free to add on to this, since I'm sure I missed some interesting comparisons.
Actually I have kind of viewed my "career change to teaching" and how I and my cohort have done that way for awhile, but was afraid to post it thinking others would find it silly or that it didn't apply to most other fields. I kind of thought it like:
1) If you got a "full" teaching job you were in "the majors"
2) If you were "subbing" (except for "long-term single assignment", see below) or "tutoring" you were in "the minors"
3) If you're a former teacher who is laid off or if you took time off to raise kids and are "jumping back in" (like my mother-in-law in the 70s) you're the "free agent" (as are (more common before 2008 though) things like teachers who after several years doing it in urban areas jumping to the suburbs for more money and a better environment).
4) Finally if you got a part-time teaching job or were an "intern" or "long-term sub" for the same teacher I saw that as the equivalent of when they expand the major league baseball rosters from 25 to 40 people in September and bring people up for a "cup of tea". Or maybe it's the equivalent of "spring training" with all the people from the minors on the roster.
Very cool that someone sort of analogized it like I do (expanding it to the general job market no less).
It's very well put actually. I would add some more Baseball rules:
Graduates: The "draft picks". More often in these times, jobs give up their draft picks when they pick up veterans, or those with more experience; Franchises/companies pick up draft picks that are the highest ranked when older workers retire, or are laid off to become free agents.
Highly experienced unemployed: The Type A free agent, having the most experience; franchises/companies are likely to pick these first for even entry level jobs.
Fairly experienced unemployed: The Type B free agent, having some experience. Franchises/companies may go for these next, if some Type A free agent get picky during searches and won't settle for what is offered (those holding out for dream jobs/better jobs in this economy), if it is less than what they think they're worth; or as the Type A free agents get picked first by other franchises/companies.
Least experienced unemployed: The unclassified free agent with fewest amount of experience. Franchises/companies won't be as interested in these as long as there are better free agents available.
Maybe I'm too much of a nerd, but I like to view the job market the same way I view a professional sports league (NFL, MLB, NHL, NBA, etc.). Here's how:
Small Companies: These are the minor league franchises. Once you graduate from college, it's much easier to break into these firms than it is with the big firms that everyone knows about. You start here to gain experience and to develop your skills. Small companies typically offer fewer advancement opportunities and have less money to spend on talent. So, once you've mastered your entry-level position, you can start looking at getting into the "Big Leagues" with well-known corporate giants. Small companies (minor league teams) are also nice places for older veterans to settle down once they've passed the prime of their career. They can offer their expertise in the field to mentor the ambitious rookies who are trying to get their lucky break.
Large Companies: These are the big league franchises. Often times, this is where the big bucks can be earned. Also, there tend to be a lot more advancement opportunities. You might start out in the mail room or as an admin asst. (i.e. 3rd or 4th string), but as you gain experience and knowledge of the industry you can move up to more important roles in the company (i.e. 1st or 2nd string).
The unemployed: You are the free agents out there. Your skills, education, experience, age, and overall ability to produce points determines how much you'll earn. Unfortunately, the current free agent market feels as if there is a low salary cap in place, limiting the ability of franchises (companies) to spend big bucks to sign top talent. It's similar to the NHL, where former star players now have to play for significantly less since teams need to be able to fall in under the salary cap (i.e. their budget).
Is this silly? I don't know, I like to think it's an interesting perspective and keeps things less boring. Feel free to add on to this, since I'm sure I missed some interesting comparisons.
Not sure if I agree with the analogy of small companies and minor league. Consider a graduate from college entering the workforce. I don't sense the lower level graduates getting hired by small companies more than they would larger companies. In fact, the opposite might be true. In a smaller company often a person has to make an impact or they're out - they are more visible, they have more at stake, they take on a greater proportion of the responsibility. In a larger company a low performer can be absorbed much easier, he can be moved around until the right "fit" is found for him, he plays less of a role in the bottom line. Finally, often it takes a more confident, talented person to accept a position in a small company, wheras an average performer presumes less pressure in a huge company as "teams" often share the duties and the pressure is spread around. [I am writing in the context of engineering graduates, but the same rationale may apply for any profession.] For large companies, this is especially true as many large companies have "Cost Plus" contracts; the company makes money simply because they are paying you - you're just a body.
Also, larger companies probably have better benefits packages overall but smaller companies often have stock options or bonuses. In a large company often it is only the big shots that get the huge bonuses - most of the rank and file employees are getting 3%-5% raises with little standard deviation (an all star doesn't get that much bigger of a raise than a slacker).
Not sure if I agree with the analogy of small companies and minor league. Consider a graduate from college entering the workforce. I don't sense the lower level graduates getting hired by small companies more than they would larger companies. In fact, the opposite might be true. In a smaller company often a person has to make an impact or they're out - they are more visible, they have more at stake, they take on a greater proportion of the responsibility. In a larger company a low performer can be absorbed much easier, he can be moved around until the right "fit" is found for him, he plays less of a role in the bottom line. Finally, often it takes a more confident, talented person to accept a position in a small company, wheras an average performer presumes less pressure in a huge company as "teams" often share the duties and the pressure is spread around. [I am writing in the context of engineering graduates, but the same rationale may apply for any profession.] For large companies, this is especially true as many large companies have "Cost Plus" contracts; the company makes money simply because they are paying you - you're just a body.
Also, larger companies probably have better benefits packages overall but smaller companies often have stock options or bonuses. In a large company often it is only the big shots that get the huge bonuses - most of the rank and file employees are getting 3%-5% raises with little standard deviation (an all star doesn't get that much bigger of a raise than a slacker).
You've been in the workforce much longer than i have, so I'll take your word for it. Those were observations made from my short tenure at my present company. I work for a small company that's contracted with a large corporation, so it seems like a pretty good vantage point to compare and contrast.
My main point is that there are usually more opportunities to be had at a large company as opposed to a small company. Maybe it's a result of the economy, but it seems there are a lot more opportunities with the large company we're contracted with and very few with the small company that I work for directly. I'm sure back in the 90s, during the peak of Silicon Valley's progress, small start ups were expanding at record pace. For that reason, you probably had a lot more opportunities to grow with the company in a much shorter period of tiem. I'm just not seeing that with smaller companies today, as it seems they are either complacent or not wanting to expand due to lack of funds. I've been with the company for two years. Neither the employees or the company has experienced any advancement/growth in that time.
Other things I've noticed:
* Large company receives a 10% bonus each year. My small employer gives out about a 5% bonus each year.
* More training offered at large company. My small employer seems to shy away from it even with the topic is breached.
* Promotions occur more frequently at larger company. My small employer has had employees working for 10+ years in the same position. In other words, you don't get promoted unless you create a position for them, like I did when I interviewed for an outside opportunity.
Last edited by mcb1025; 08-06-2010 at 08:15 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
